Heliyon · 2021
Evaluation and comparison two types of prefabricated zirconia crowns in mixed and primary dentition: A randomized clinical trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hanafi Louay, Altinawi Mohamed, Comisi John C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Prefabricated zirconia crowns are available to treat anterior and posterior primary teeth, which possess high resistance, long durability, and short working time. They are also esthetic and available in various sizes for all primary teeth. However, their high costs can present a clear disadvantage in many communities around the world.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This random clinical trial study sample included 63 crowns (31 CCZC, 32 NZC) applied to 44 children aged five to nine years with zirconia crowns placed on anterior or posterior primary teeth. Group (1): Locally manufactured crowns were created with different measurements by using CAD/CAM (CCZC) and Group (2): NuSmile® zirconia crowns (NZC). Glass ionomer cement was used to cement all crowns. The children were followed-up at one, three, and six months, using oral hygiene index-simplified (OHI-S), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and crown margin extension. Statistical analyses used: Mann-Whitney U test, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon test.
RESULTS: This study showed that CCZC did not cause gingival changes after crown application in clinical tissue appearance, bleeding, and gingival recession. Reduced plaque accumulation was observed during follow-up periods. Finally, there was no statistically significant difference between CCZC and NZC, according to this study.
CONCLUSIONS: CCZCs are a convenient and economical option to achieve esthetic, healthy, and functional aspects during restoring primary teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This random clinical trial study sample included 63 crowns (31 CCZC, 32 NZC) applied to 44 children aged five to nine years with zirconia crowns placed on anterior or posterior primary teeth. Group (1): Locally manufactured crowns were created with different measurements by using CAD/CAM (CCZC) and Group (2): NuSmile® zirconia crowns (NZC). Glass ionomer cement was used to cement all crowns. The children were followed-up at one, three, and six months, using oral hygiene index-simplified (OHI-S), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and crown margin extension. Statistical analyses used: Mann-Whitney U test, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon test.
RESULTS: This study showed that CCZC did not cause gingival changes after crown application in clinical tissue appearance, bleeding, and gingival recession. Reduced plaque accumulation was observed during follow-up periods. Finally, there was no statistically significant difference between CCZC and NZC, according to this study.
CONCLUSIONS: CCZCs are a convenient and economical option to achieve esthetic, healthy, and functional aspects during restoring primary teeth.